A wife is caught lying to the court !! The husband brings proper proof showing that the wife is already employed and so is not eligible for any maintenance or alimony. The wife gets away with a small fine but the court still grants her maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000 every month. Though the wife is employed and has lied to the court. This is the pathetic state of MEN in India.
WOMAN FINED FOR LYING TO GET HEFTIER ALIMONY
By Nikunj Soni, Ahmedabad Mirror | Updated: May 12, 2018, 02.00 AM IST
The court refrained from filing an FIR against the woman
In an exceptional order that could have a bearing on other cases related to marital dispute, a 36- year-old hospital employee from the city — who lied under oath to seek a fat maintenance from her estranged husband — will have to face a major penalty for ‘perjury’. Despite earning Rs 15,000 per month, she had informed the family court that she was a homemaker and, therefore, liable to get alimony.
The court refrained from filing an FIR against the woman, but imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 for lying under oath. The fine will be deposited in the government treasury. As per case details, Manisha and Kapil got married in 2012. In her petition, Manisha claimed that Kapil had promised him to shift to Australia and take her along with him. “However, Kapil and his parents started torturing her physically and mentally. They kicked her out of the house three months after their marriage,” the petition claimed.
No Relief for Salla
Kapil worked as a software developer and earned a salary of more than Rs 50,000 a month. She claimed that his father who worked in a private bank also earned the same amount. In her petition, Manisha stated that she lived with her father and did not have any means of livelihood. Hence she should be provided monthly alimony of Rs 30,000. However, when the case was heard in court, Kapil moved an application seeking criminal action against Manisha for lying about her financial condition.
He submitted evidence that Manisha works as an administrator at a private hospital and earns salary of Rs 15.000. Before this, she worked with a government university on contract. The court then called Manisha for cross-examination where she confessed that she did earn salary as claimed by Kapil. The court took note of this and imposed a fine of Rs 5,000. However, court also ordered Kapil to provide monthly alimony of Rs 15,000 observing that as per law, “the woman had a right to live a life equal to the one being led by the husband”.
— Read on ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/woman-fined-for-lying-to-get-heftier-alimony/articleshow/64130002.cms
Bombay HC: Pheras Around Burning Incense Sticks is Saptapadi u/Hindu Marriage Act
2 days ago
May 10, 2018
In a recent case, the Bombay High Court while deciding a matrimonial case recognized a bundle of burning aggarbattis as “sacred fire” under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Brief facts of the case- In the case the Petitioner prayed for dissolution of marriage on the ground that he was married off to the respondent forcibly and without his consent. The Petitioner inter alia also alleged that the impugned marriage was liable to be annulled as the Saptapadi ceremony (taking seven rounds/steps around the sacred fire) had not been performed.
The Family Court in the case after examining the evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the Appellant was unable to prove that the marriage with the Respondent was solemnized without his consent. The Family Court also came to the conclusion that the marriage solemnized between the Appellant and the Respondent could not annulled by decree of nullity and the Respondent was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
The aggrieved appellant husband approached the High Court contending that the Saptapadi ceremony was not performed by taking 7 steps around the sacred fire as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore the marriage could never have been said to be completed between the Appellant and the Respondent.
According to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a marriage is deemed complete and binding once the rites and ceremonies including the saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire). Thus, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
Bombay High Court’s Verdict
The Bombay High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and made the following observations in the case:
That the Priest who performed the marriage had categorically stated that a bundle of agarbatti was burnt and the Appellant and the Respondent had taken seven steps/pheras around it.
That what is a sacred fire has not been defined in the Act. The fact that there was a bundle of agarbattis that was burning and the Appellant and the Respondent took seven pheras around the said agarbattis is not disputed. This being the case, it would be enough to show that there was compliance of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
That the The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 itself mentions in section 7 as to what is Saptapadi viz. taking of seven steps by the bride-groom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire. The fact that seven pheras were taken around the bundle of burning aggarbattis and looking at the other evidence (such as photographs amongst other things) which clearly show that Sindoor was put by the Appellant on the Respondent and he has garlanded her- the requirements of a marriage as contemplated under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were duly complied with.
That merely because they took seven pheras around the burning aggarbattis did not mean that no seven pheras were taken around the sacred fire as contemplated under section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Woman can file complaint against ex-husband for cruelty even after divorce: Supreme Court
Updated May 12, 2018 | 18:01 IST | PTI
New Delhi: A woman can lodge a complaint under the domestic violence law against the excesses committed by her ex-husband even after the dissolution of marriage, the Supreme Court has said. The top court refused to interfere with the order of the Rajasthan High Court which held that the absence of subsisting domestic relationship in no manner prevents a court from granting relief to the aggrieved woman.
The high court had passed the order while adjudicating a matrimonial dispute. A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi, R Banumathi and Navin Sinha dismissed the appeal against the high court verdict, saying it was not inclined to interfere with the order in the facts of the case.
During the hearing, advocate Dushyant Parashar, appearing for the estranged husband, said that the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which came into force on October 26, 2006, could not be applied retrospectively.
He submitted that if the provisions of the domestic violence law were allowed to be used retrospectively, then it would be subjected to gross misuse.
Parashar contended that husband-wife relationship often ends on an acrimonious note and if the provisions of the Act were allowed to be used retrospectively, then it would further increase the acrimony and rule out the possibility of any compromise.
He said that legislature’s purposive interpretation has to be kept in mind while interpreting any provisions of the law.
The bench, however, refused to agree with the contention of Parashar and declined to interfere with the high court order in the facts of the case.
The high court had held on October 30, 2013 that the subsistence of marriage or domestic relationship was not a condition precedent for an aggrieved person to invoke the protection orders and other reliefs under the provisions of the Act.
“If the aggrieved person had been in domestic relationship at any point of time even prior to coming into the force of the Act and was subjected to domestic violence, the person is entitled to invoke the remedial measures provided under the Act,” it had said.
The high court had said cited an example saying that even after the dissolution of marriage between the parties, if an ex-husband attempts to commit an act of violence such as entering the place of employment of the divorced wife, trying to establish contact with her or causing violence to her dependents or other relatives, she is not precluded from seeking protection orders under the law.
It had said that likewise, if the divorced husband attempts to dispossess the woman from the shared household or property jointly owned, she can approach a court for appropriate relief.